ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for certiorari to quash decision of Industrial Court - Findings of Industrial Court - Usage of phrase 'not an iota of evidence' by Industrial Court chairman in award - Whether Industrial Court chairman had committed an error of law going to jurisdiction in making findings that no evidence was adduced to support company's charges when in fact company produced its witnesses

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for certiorari to quash decision of Industrial Court - Industrial Court awarding monetary compensation rather than reinstatement - Prayer for reinstatement to former employment without any loss of seniority, wages and benefits of any kind - Whether Industrial Court erred in awarding monetary compensation rather than reinstatement

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Jurisdiction of High Court - Interference with findings of fact made by Industrial Court - Whether supervisory court ought to interfere with findings of fact made by Industrial Court

Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Eight publications in form of Audio CD carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated - Whether power to withhold and confiscate publications exercised lawfully and legally - Whether there was clear demarcation between power given to Minister under s. 9 of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (the Act) and power bestowed upon senior authorised officer under s. 9A of the Act - Letter purporting to confiscate publication signed by person other than Minister and not envisaged by Parliament as empowered to make order - Whether ultra vires s. 9 of the Act - Prayer sought to challenge prohibition of the use of the word 'Allah' - Whether could be done in collateral manner or to be challenged in isolation - Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam NegeriMenteri Bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor v. Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill & Another Appeal
(Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Zakaria Sam, Abang Iskandar JJCA) [2015] 7 CLJ 727 [CA]

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) ACT TO THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY*byTAN SIN LIANG**

Scope of CPFTA

The scope of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A) ("CPFTA") is now extended to govern all "financial products"[1] and "financial services"[2] regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and all commodity trading under the Commodity Trading Act. Thus, the CPFTA will govern: (i) all banking activities under the Banking Act (eg, deposits, mortgages, letters of credit, bank guarantees, credit facilities etc,; (ii) all financial products provided by a financial adviser under the Financial Advisers Act (eg, structured deposits, foreign exchange, leveraged foreign exchange, life policies, investment-linked policies etc,); and (iii) all activities relating to dealing in securities, fund management, marketing collective investment schemes, trading in futures and leveraged foreign exchange etc, under the Securities and Futures Act. The CPFTA no longer governs only retail consumer goods and services but applies to a wide range of financial products and services as well. It may be worthwhile to note that the CPFTA does not apply to the acquisition of estate or interest in immovable property (however, it applies to rental of residential property), employment contracts and pawn broking.[3]

Objective and Application of CPFTA

As the name of the Act implies, the objective of the CPFTA is to protect the consumer[4] against “unfair practices”[5] by the supplier[6] in relation to any consumer transaction.[7] The CPFTA only applies to a supplier or consumer who is resident in Singapore; hence a tourist will not enjoy any protection under CPFTA. Also, the offer or the acceptance relating to the consumer transaction must be made in or sent from Singapore. Hence, there must be sufficient “nexus” between the consumer transaction and Singapore.[8]

. . .

* This article was originally published in the (May 2012) issue of the Singapore Law Gazette (www.lawgazette.com.sg), the official publication of the Law Society of Singapore, published by LexisNexis. Reproduced with permission.

"Violence against women by an intimate partner is a major contributor of the ill-health of women...it has a far deeper impact than the immediate harm caused. It has devastating consequences for the women who experience it, and a traumatic effect on those who witness it, particularly children...Violence against women is a violation of basic human rights that must be eliminated through political will and by legal and civil action in all sectors of society..."[1]

According to the United States Department of Justice ("USDOJ") ie, The Office on Violence Against Women states that there are a few types of domestic violence namely physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse and psychological abuse.[2] Physical Abuse is commonly known. Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, etc. are types of physical abuse. This type of abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her.[3] Another type of abuse is sexual abuse. It is the act of coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behaviour without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to, marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.[4]